Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on June 13, 2006, 02:58:13 am
-
Y'know, few weeks back. hundreds of police storming a bungalow, the tabloids wailing about the search for a doomsday chemical (oh hell, let's make it nuclear - better headlines) device that could Destroy The World, one of 2 brothers shot, live ITV hand-flailing?
Weeellllllll.......
How many tabloids reported that they were released without charge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5066846.stm)?
Of course, that's 2 shootings, no terrorists shot. Lovely country, eh?
-
This is what happens when you give the police free reign to shoot whoever they want, and then justify it by going "He was teh terrorist... or so we thought!".
-
I'd happily live at risk from the police in a police state if it meant a guarantee less risk to the general population from outside threats or criminal elements.
-
... then you're a ****ing moron. :wtf:
-
I'd happily live at risk from the police in a police state if it meant a guarantee less risk to the general population from outside threats or criminal elements.
Ok.
*hauls Colonel Dekker into jail without charge for 2 years *
(technically, the police state that guarentees reduced external threats also promises increased internal threats)
-
Well thats the trouble isn't it. Our system doesn't garuntee less risk to the general population from outside threats / criminals. Infact I believe crime rates are rising in the UK and only yesterday I recall (though didn't closely read) a headline stating the current Labour government telling the population to "stop moaning about it".
I wonder if they'd moan if one of their close relatives was shot because someone thought they were a terrorist. Heck, if anyone deserves it it's Tony Blair.
-
... then you're a ****ing moron. :wtf:
Suck my nuts!
You like chavs, kids commiting suicide through bullying and random muggings not to mention terrorist bombings, If it was all cut down as i said then i'd be happy, if a few mistakes happen, so be it.
-
... then you're a ****ing moron. :wtf:
Suck my nuts!
You like chavs, kids commiting suicide through bullying and random muggings not to mention terrorist bombings, If it was all cut down as i said then i'd be happy, if a few mistakes happen, so be it.
So long as you're not the 'mistake', eh?
Well thats the trouble isn't it. Our system doesn't garuntee less risk to the general population from outside threats / criminals. Infact I believe crime rates are rising in the UK and only yesterday I recall (though didn't closely read) a headline stating the current Labour government telling the population to "stop moaning about it".
I wonder if they'd moan if one of their close relatives was shot because someone thought they were a terrorist. Heck, if anyone deserves it it's Tony Blair.
Hmm.... well, you know i'm not a Labour apologist or anything but there are BCS (British Crime Survey) records indicating - loosely - that 'minor' (theft, assault, burglary) crimes have actually decreased, but it's the reportage that's increased (the BCS aims to record non-reported crime, i.e. the stuff that people don't report to the police for various reasons). Plus, I did get the impression the whole 'vigilante' thing was just tabloid pish in response to a single quote that was actually relating to a campaign to get people to report crime more often.
-
Ever seen Swordfish?
GABRIEL
Stanley, here's a scenario. You
have the power to cure all of the
world's diseases. But the price
for this is that you must kill a
single, innocent child. Could you
kill that child to save the world?
STANLEY
No.
GABRIEL
You disappoint me, Stanley. It's
the greatest good.
STANLEY
How about ten innocents?
GABRIEL
Now you're getting it. How about
a hundred? How about a thousand?
Not to save the world, but just to
preserve our way of life.
So what about you? I think the parallels are quite similar.
-
Ever seen Swordfish?
GABRIEL
Stanley, here's a scenario. You
have the power to cure all of the
world's diseases. But the price
for this is that you must kill a
single, innocent child. Could you
kill that child to save the world?
STANLEY
No.
GABRIEL
You disappoint me, Stanley. It's
the greatest good.
STANLEY
How about ten innocents?
GABRIEL
Now you're getting it. How about
a hundred?
GABRIEL
How about a thousand? Not to save
the world, but just to preserve
our way of life.
So what about you? I think the parallels are quite similar.
All you have to ask is the question 'what if it was your kid?'
and I think then you have the answer.
-
If i was the mistake, Id be happy to allow it for the greater good Aldo.
Sincerely and honestly so.... :yes:
Anyway as someone said earlier "Lovely country, eh?" Its not that great at the moment anyway...
-
The Balance is hard to strike. It served a lot of peoples purposes to whip the population up into a fear-powered frenzy, especially after the bombings in London.
But for every bit of privacy we surrender, there is a far larger price to pay than simple first appearances. Personally, I don't think this is about surrendering privacy though, it's about making sure your intelligence is correct and that the habit of shooting people because you think they are terrorists and about to do something dangerous is both neccesary when viewed from the Police point of view, but extremely dangerous when the correct intelligence is obviously lacking.
If I were a cop with a Gun, and I really believed that the guy in front of me had access to chemical weapons or the like, I'd be forced to make a difficult decision as well.
BUT.. If we are going to send armed men with orders of 'If in doubt, shoot', then you better make damn sure your intelligence is based on more than stereotype and assumption. The Police obviously believed they were right. Circumstances have obviously proved them wrong.
I, for one, never want to have to go through another day like last years bombings, but if that meant giving the Police carte blanche to make mistakes such as this without any recourse, then I think it would be more than I am prepared to pay.
I'll wait and see what comes of this before I come to a decision.
-
If i was the mistake, Id be happy to allow it for the greater good Aldo.
Sincerely and honestly so.... :yes:
Anyway as someone said earlier "Lovely country, eh?" Its not that great at the moment anyway...
The greater good, eh? What is 'the greater good', anyways, in a situation like this? Authoritarianism?
I mean, me, I'm not too willing to get shot to assist the governments paranoia-mongering, when our response to a supposed threat to our democracy and freedoms is to impose ever-tightening restraints on our democracy and freedoms.
-
The greater good in my opinion, Is the general wellfare and safety of the law abiding populace.
-
True, but it could be argued that the 'law abiding populace' depends on the law. Also, it seems to have included two guys who have just been shot, they were just as law-abiding as anyone else, but it didn't protect them.
That's why it's so important to be sure.
-
jeeze, you brits are thin skined. 'Oh noes, the police made a mistake! police it's all your fault, your not alowed to arrest anyone else, and ... no cars now, you have to do what ever it is your still allowed to do on scooters'
seriously, the cops ****ed up, it isn't a sign of creeping totalitarianism. just because your tabloids sensationalised the **** out of it doesn't make it anything more than that.
-
e may be thin skinned but at least we could hack it over here, we didnt have to run of to form Bustopia ;)
-
So... it's OK to shoot innocent people now and us thinking differently makes us thin skinned?
Sorry, but I don't buy that. The innocent do not deserve to die and those that kill them should be held accountable 100% of the time. Were this a case of "friendly fire" in a war zone, I'd accept it as an unfortunate accident. But this was a planned police raid. How many should we allow to die before we finally stand up and say "stop killing innocent people"?
-
I'm not saying that it'll turn into Bit Cit from 2000AD comics, with Judges running round all over the place killing a dozen people for jaywalking, But at least we havent got the states gun crime rate over here, and if i understand corectly your rozzers are a bit trigger happy themselves.
-
Because if we don't stand up and say something, then we are condoning the mistake Bobb. It's very easy to say 'these things happen' until it's you that's staring down a gun barrel.
As one of your own great quoters once said, 'The Price of Freedom is eternal vigilance.', and he didn't just mean from the inside looking out. I actually consider it our responsibility to be concerned. If we stop, then we allow it to pass because it's for the 'Greater Good', I would consider that a far less 'brave' thing to do.
If we let the government make our opinions for us, rather than wanting answers, we would put ourselves in terrible danger.
-
I agree Flip, its just my opinion that i happen to believe the price would be worth it. I can understand your view, I just dont take it. :yes:
-
jeeze, you brits are thin skined. 'Oh noes, the police made a mistake! police it's all your fault, your not alowed to arrest anyone else, and ... no cars now, you have to do what ever it is your still allowed to do on scooters'
seriously, the cops ****ed up, it isn't a sign of creeping totalitarianism. just because your tabloids sensationalised the **** out of it doesn't make it anything more than that.
You think we shouldn't be upset when several hundred police storm a semi-detached bungalow, and shoot an entirely innocent man? For the 2nd time in a year? Hell, it's entirely possible we could have had 2 innocent people killed by ham-fisted police action as a consequence, rather than 'just' de Menenzes.
Obviously you don't get the same media, but we've had so many cases when people - always asians - get arrested to huge publicity, and their release gets sweet f.a. coverage thereafter; it's endemic of a creeping racism that is seemingly singling out Muslims in particular but anyone of a particular skin colour, as suspects.
We never get justification, we never get answers. We're just expected to trust an increasingly authoritarian government that criticises the likes of Liberty as helping terrorists, has spend £32m of taxpayer money on propagandising an ID card scheme yet refused to release the risk/benefits assesments or costs to the taxpayer, is now (attemptedly) interfering in judicial sentencing/review, sought to restrict trial-by-jury, detained multiple people indefinately without trial, assisted/permitted the kidnap of foreign nationals under the US' 'rendition' scheme, tried to pass a bill that would effectively declaw parliament as a legislative force, tried to bring in 3 month arbitrary detention without charge, participated in an illegal war, and sacked (and libelled) an ambassador who complained about the tacit acceptance of information gained by torture in Uzbekhistan. And that's just offhand.
-
I'm going to see who gets punished and how before I declare irretrivable ****up.
The only good thing about mistakes is that they show you who's incompetent.
-
Yup, same here, it's still ongoing, but there's a habit here of keeping quiet and hoping the public forgets. It's like the recent attempted removal of a protester from outside Parliament, despite the fact he'd been given permission to be there by the courts, the Police still tried to raid him at around 2am and destroyed all his placards and memorials to those who died in Iraq, and the kept very very quiet, since the public donated enough stuff not only for him to return, but to have twice as many placards etc.
That still makes my blood boil, because it was the very definition of Police State. Someone peacefully objects so you try to remove them by force.
-
I've said this before here, and I'll say it again: Freedom is not free. Sometimes that means killing for your country, your values and your beliefs - and sometimes it means dying for them; risking being blown up by terrorists - thats the true price of freedom.
-
Indeed, theres part of me that would rather die a peaceful man than allow others to make me into a violent one.
-
so who else liked V for Vendetta?
i loved it.
-
Indeed, theres part of me that would rather die a peaceful man than allow others to make me into a violent one.
I hear ya Flip.
Thats how i'm thinking, I'd rather die as an acceptable loss to keep society policed, than to have a few dozen die through inadequate police strength. :yes:
@Turambar
Never seen it ..
-
Indeed, but, for me at least, turning a blind eye to those mistakes is condoning it. I'm not a violent person by nature, though I understand why 'violent men' are needed, but the hard part is, and always will be, striking the balance between the two. That's why we must always watch ourselves.
Anyway, I'm going to see how this plays out and take it from there.
-
I have to add, i considered the police after i left the forces but i would never last. I wouldn't have the patience if i saw a load of Chavs stealing a handbag from an old lady. I'd make them dissappear, I'm not violent by nature but i was raised with respect instilled in me. And when i see that sort of thing it filles me with the worst kind of rage. (not hulk calibre rage but as near to it as possible while staying pink)
-
Indeed, theres part of me that would rather die a peaceful man than allow others to make me into a violent one.
I hear ya Flip.
Thats how i'm thinking, I'd rather die as an acceptable loss to keep society policed, than to have a few dozen die through inadequate police strength. :yes:
I heard there are things between a authoritarian police state, where innocent people - like me - can be killed just for the heck of it, and ham-fisted anarchy.
So you're willing to die as an acceptable loss? Well jolly gee, I am not, but maybe police can now kill someone like your wife or son and it's ok. After all, it's for a greater good (which is apparently not personal freedom but security).
@Turambar
Never seen it ..
[/quote]
-
I have to add, i considered the police after i left the forces but i would never last. I wouldn't have the patience if i saw a load of Chavs stealing a handbag from an old lady. I'd make them dissappear, I'm not violent by nature but i was raised with respect instilled in me. And when i see that sort of thing it filles me with the worst kind of rage. (not hulk calibre rage but as near to it as possible while staying pink)
If you accept vigilance then you pretty much throw the law away.
-
@Janos, if it happens it happens if not, all the better for society.
Vigilance is alertness, Vigilantes are a different play on the word.
-
Vigilanteism is the abandonment of justice and reason for revenge.
-
Yeah but Vigilance is derived from Vigilant>
On the aert, Watchful
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilant)
:P
-
Question: Are we arguing about the police using force, or the police using force unnessesarily(sp?)?
IMO. If a police officer sees a gunman robbing a shop, then shoot the bastard until he leaks trought the holes in the floor.
If a police officer arrives at the scene of the crime and sees a strange looking dude running around, then for god sake don't shoot him. First find out if he did it.
I would like to point out to everyone that we should not be whining about police using force. They have to do it in order to keep the peace (at least in some countries). What we should be whining about is that the police have to be abso-****ing-lutley sure when to use force. But this is a problem because, as we all very well know, the law enforcement is nearly completely made out of humans (apart from few dogs and other assorted animals). There is no such thing as a human who never makes mistakes. Especially in a situation where number of innocent lives are counting on ones actions. Okay, I can accept that. What I can't accept is that anyone one who makes a mistake is ripped to shreds and urinated on by the media. And then a few others, who know things better than anyone one else (not pointed at anyone in HLP, but those who like to judge others in TV and papers), poke the remains a bit to make sure that therese nothing left to crucify.You cant really wonder why the authorities try to hide these mistakes.
Ofcourse an innocent death is always unfortunate, but for **** sake you cannot blame a person for making a quick decision in a stressful situation. If there is a career police/military officer who has been in a life threatning situation where subordinates and civillians have been under your responsibility, then speak up.
And you can't argue that "they have responsibility to not make mistakes". It is not humanly possible. Period.
If the authorities really do something wrong/against the law knowingly, then by all means unleash the media at them. That'll ruin their lives. But accidents and mistakes made by people, who are no worse or better than anyone in these boards, should not be broadcasted as works of the lord of chaos whose evil spawn have once again done evil deeds dusguised behind a uniform.
Damn, I started preaching again...
Point of this post:
Those with authority = Are only humans, fully capable of making mistakes.
Those with authority who misuse that authority = Are nothing more than criminals IMO, and should be treated as such. Unfortunatley they have authority, so they usually manage to slip away.
Media that tries to feed me anything else than the weather and two days old researched facts = Are bunch of ****ing vultures.
There is much to be improved in police forces (at least in some places). There is much to be improved in the media (in some of it). But as long as there is crime, there will be problems with the police. And I know this discussion will be going on ten years from now.
-
Yeah but Vigilance is derived from Vigilant>
On the aert, Watchful
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilant)
:P
And?
The actual term vigilante originates from the vigilante urbanus, the roman equivalent of night watchmen-cum-firemen. Clearly, we have professionals doing this job, so vigilante means 'wannabe policeman'.
-
If you accept vigilance then you pretty much throw the law away.
What the freaking spooge has Vigilance to do with throwing the law away?
I know justice is blind but if you meant "accept Vigilantes" you should have said so :wtf:
Bloody heck, oh giant penguin god give me strength against the mentally weak :no:
-
stuff
Yeah, but police force is not a human organization after all. It's an organization with quite simple goals: to keep up the law. It MUST learn of it's mistakes and it MUST make sure it never makes the same mistake twice.
Mistakes happen and so be it. However, there are honest mistakes ("he was running at me, pointing something that looked exactly like an AK-101 and did not stop, so I fired a warning shot and he didn't stop so I tried to cripple him and he still pointed the thing at me and I had to shoot him, and it was a BB replica gun") and goddamn stupid mistakes ("I saw him and I just accidentally pulled my trigger and emptied an entire mag on him. Oh and it was a wrong dude but hey v:)v"
Forgive the hyperbole. In the first scenario the mistake is quite clear. The second is just completely ****ing dumb and dude who makes that kind of mistake is not fit for responsible duty where he is actually keeping up the law and being an example.
Point of this post:
Those with authority = Are only humans, fully capable of making mistakes.
Agreed and yes, but their organisations are perfectionist, they aim and opt for unity in reason and performance (how delightfully authoritarian). The organizations only use the individuals as mediums. Individual can **** up and it's ok, but because of largely emergent nature of the social complexes and especially legal thingamungies the organisations must minimize even the chance of a ****-up.
Those with authority who misuse that authority = Are nothing more than criminals IMO, and should be treated as such. Unfortunatley they have authority, so they usually manage to slip away.
Media that tries to feed me anything else than the weather and two days old researched facts = Are bunch of ****ing vultures.
There is a deep, subtle irony in your logic. I agree that media usually goes with the lowest common nominator and reports dash news. They also report developing issues, leak data, spark up debates, lead to investigations and so on. Sometimes people are cleared, like Rove. Sometimes the media can bring the issue on daylight even when there has been a cover-up (say Haditha). The more important the thing the more urgently it has to be reported.
There is much to be improved in police forces (at least in some places).
Governmental.
There is much to be improved in the media (in some of it).
Individual non-governmental (usuallly). Apples and oranges.
But as long as there is crime, there will be problems with the police. And I know this discussion will be going on ten years from now.
Yeah, and same boring old debate has only brought along some **** like quite trustworthy police forces (at least up here) and more transparent nomination and training and more ethical training and more restrained methods etc.